Identity Cards Bill - Standing Committee D

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Identity Cards Bill

Roger Gale: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Before we commence, I should say that it has been drawn to my attention that, for reasons I cannot even begin to contemplate, the Committee wants to complete its proceedings in this sitting. That being so, I shall make a ruling so that everyone knows where they stand.
I believe that all Members have an absolute right to attend Speaker’s prayers if they so wish, and most certainly to be present at Question Time. I do not, therefore, propose to invoke the 15-minute rule, which is in my gift, so either this morning’s proceedings will be completed by 10.25 am or the Committee will sit again at 1 pm.

Clause 31 - Tampering with the Register etc.

Nick Palmer: I beg to move amendment No. 196, in clause 31, page 26, line 41, after “unauthorised”, insert “access to or”.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 197, in clause 31, page 27, line 1, after “cause”, insert “access to or”.
No. 198, in clause 31, page 27, line 3, after “such”, insert “an access to or”.
No. 199, in clause 31, page 27, line 5, after “causes”, insert “an access to or”.
No. 200, in clause 31, page 27, line 7, after “to”, insert “an access or”.
No. 201, in clause 31, page 27, line 17, after “section”, insert “an access or”.
No. 202, in clause 31, page 27, line 19, after “the”, insert “access or”.
No. 203, in clause 31, page 27, line 21, after “the”, insert “access or”.
No. 204, in clause 31, page 27, line 24, after “causing”, insert “an access to or”.
No. 205, in clause 31, page 27, line 29, after “the”, insert “access or”.

Nick Palmer: I had intended to speak for several hours, but cross-party representations have persuaded me otherwise.

Roger Gale: Order. So far as I am concerned, the hon. Gentleman may speak for as long as he likes, as long as he is in order.

Nick Palmer: I am grateful, Mr. Gale, but I fear that you alone in this Room hold that view.
The purpose of the amendments, which are probing, is to ask the Government what they will do to discourage hacking into the database. Hacking worries my constituents more than tampering. It is reasonably unlikely that someone will try to get into a database and, say, enter a different address, but my constituents are concerned about unauthorised access. All of us who have worked in IT will know about the more familiar type of electronic intrusion.
The amendments are, in essence, identical and they were tabled merely for the sake of completeness. It is sufficient to discuss amendment No. 196, which would, by way of modification—the favourite word of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)—add the words “access to or”. This seems to be the more serious issue, and I would be grateful if the Minister addressed it.

Tony McNulty: As my hon. Friend has clearly outlined, his amendments have the single purpose of adding unauthorised access to the register to the modification offence created under clause 31.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling the amendments, which endeavour to ensure that those who seek to threaten the security of the register may be prosecuted, but I hope to reassure him that they are unnecessary and that the clause already provides that protection.
The clause contains the specific and serious offence, which is punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment, of unauthorised tampering with the information on the register. Someone who gains unauthorised access to information on the register remotely but who does not cause a modification or does not have the intention required by subsection (2) will nevertheless be covered by the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and will be dealt with appropriately.
Section 1 of the 1990 Act contains the offence of unauthorised access to computer material, with a maximum penalty of six months. Section 2 contains the offence of unauthorised access with the intent to commit or facilitate further offences, with a maximum penalty of five years. My hon. Friend’s substantial and fair point about access as well as modification is therefore covered by that Act.
I also reassure my hon. Friend that the fact that someone has accessed information will automatically be recorded in the technical data on the register, so there will be an audit trail of any unauthorised as well as authorised access. In that context, I ask him to withdraw his amendment, however well put and eloquently made.

Nick Palmer: I am overcome by the Minister’s kind words and flattered into doing as he suggests. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Patrick Mercer: I beg to move amendment No. 107, in clause 31, page 27, line 12, leave out subsection (4).
Amendment No. 107 complements the amendments we have just discussed, as it would remove subsection (4) of clause 31. We tabled it to probe the Government on how hackers or crackers will be dealt with if interference with the identity register comes from abroad. I would be most grateful if the Minister enlightened us on such matters.

Tony McNulty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for explaining the amendment. As he said, it would remove subsection (4), which provides for extra-territorial effect in relation to the offence of tampering with the register. Furthermore, when authorised modifications took place abroad, it would be immaterial under the amendment whether the conduct was that of a British citizen. To protect the register from unauthorised modification, we must ensure that any offences applied also apply to unauthorised modifications effected from abroad, no matter what the nationality of the computer hacker, cracker or whatever else people want to call him or her.
The register will be located in the United Kingdom. A computer located outside the United Kingdom could effect an unauthorised modification from there, but an offence would be committed in the United Kingdom under clause 31. It could be argued that United Kingdom courts would therefore have jurisdiction over any such extra-territorial offence, regardless of an express statutory reference. As the register concerns people resident in the UK, Parliament could also be understood to intend that the United Kingdom courts should have jurisdiction over all unauthorised modifications of the register.
However, I took the view that the matter should be put beyond doubt under the Bill, as the general principle of the common law of England is that the exercise of criminal jurisdiction does not extend to cover acts committed on land abroad. Furthermore, when a statute expressly provides for extra-territorial jurisdiction, it will, in the absence of further clear provision, be regarded as covering such acts only when they are committed by British subjects. Therefore, express provision has been made under subsection (4) for the offence to apply regardless of nationality.
For completeness in this IT age, when extra-terrestrials will perhaps be the next problem rather than extra-territorials, we need subsection (4). The offence will be extraditable; someone could be prosecuted if here or extradited from abroad for trial. The matter is very serious and it goes to the heart of the security of the register. On balance, I believe that clause 31 is better with subsection (4). I trust that the hon. Gentleman recognises the need to provide for extra-territorial jurisdiction in relation to the offence and I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Patrick Mercer: The Minister has hacked my amendment off at the knees.

Tony McNulty: Politely.

Patrick Mercer: Indeed, and I am most grateful to the Minister. His comments on extradition have reassured me, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale: It will also be convenient to discuss new clause 1—Prohibited uses of information—
‘(1)Subject to subsection (2), a person shall be guilty of an offence if he uses or stores any of the information set out in Schedule 1, paragraphs 4 to 9 in such a manner as to form an index to any file or data retrieval system unless—
(a)the person using or storing such information is the originator of the information; or
(b)such use or storage is undertaken as part of the operation and maintenance of the Register.
(2)The Secretary of State shall not provide any person with information from the Register if he believes that it may be used for a purpose prohibited under subsection (1).
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both;
(b)on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(c)on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.’.

Edward Garnier: While speaking briefly to the new clause, I shall refer to clause 31 as a whole. The new clause is to be found on page 305 of the modification paper and it relates somewhat to the matters we discussed a moment ago, inviting us to create an offence if a person
“uses or stores any of the information set out in Schedule 1, paragraphs 4 to 9”—
members of the Committee can see for themselves what information those contain—
“in such a manner as to form an index to any file or data retrieval system unless”
the person using it is the originator of the information or is doing that work
“as part of the operation and maintenance of the Register.”
Proposed new subsection (3) sets out the penalty.
There is a lacuna that needs to be filled if the Bill is to have any integrity according to its own principles. I put it in parenthesis that I disapprove of the Bill as a matter of principle, but if we are to have it, it might as well include new clause 1.

Tony McNulty: As we know, clause 31 provides for an offence of tampering with the register. A person is guilty of the offence if he intentionally or recklessly makes an unauthorised modification of an entry. New clause 1 would prevent the reference numbers or histories contained in paragraphs 4 to 9 of schedule 1 from being used as index numbers on third-party databases unless those third parties were the originators of the information. A new offence would be created for those who breached the terms of the clause.
On balance, we will resist the new clause. It does not attempt to prevent the information from being held on the register—new clause 1(1)(b) ensures that—but it would restrict how third parties could use and store the information. It refers to “person”, so it covers public authorities and private organisations. The effect would be to prevent the immigration and nationality directorate, for example, from holding an individual’s foreign passport number as a reference number because it would not be the originator of that number. It would also prevent legitimate employers from being able to sort their employee databases using their national insurance numbers.
If the hon. and learned Member for Harborough had been minded to do so and if he had more time, he might have explained that the new clause is meant to probe the circumstances when a third party could hold an individual’s national identity registration number on file and the consequences of that. A third party would have the NIR number only with consent, as covered in clause 14, or in accordance with the specific circumstances that we discussed around clauses 19, 20 and 22. The number would be of no use to the third party as it would have neither the ID card nor the biometrics with which it would match.
On the provision of information, the Bill sets out clearly who, what, why and how. Beyond that, it is not appropriate or practical for the Bill to be used to restrict the manner in which information may be held by third parties or to limit how it may be used by them. In practice, those concerns relate to the fair processing of information and thus fall under the remit of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner.
I understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman tabled new clause 1, but I ask hon. Members to resist it. I commend clause 31 to the Committee.

Edward Garnier: I may be able to help the Minister. I will not press new clause 1, either now or at a later stage, but will he tell me why clause 31(4), which my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) reasonably tabled an amendment to delete, cannot simply state that an offence under the provision may be committed by a British citizen anywhere in the world and by anyone within the United Kingdom? That says the same thing in fewer words.

Tony McNulty: Far be it from me to challenge the legalese that forms our deliberations, as I am not a member of legal fraternity. I suspect that the subsection says entirely what the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, but in the frilly and flowery language that is our legalese. That is a shame, as I would prefer plain English, but there we have it. It says what he says, but in lawyers’ terms.

Edward Garnier: If that was a bouquet, I would hate to see a hand grenade. Whatever I have to do to withdraw new clause 1, I shall do it.

Roger Gale: The answer is that the hon. and learned Gentleman has to do nothing, as it has not been moved.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33 - Imposition of civil penalties

Edward Garnier: I beg to move amendment No. 109, in clause 33, page 28, line 40, after “defaulter”, insert “in writing”.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 110, in clause 33, page 29, line 6, at end insert
‘including methods by which payment may be made by instalments’.
No. 111, in clause 33, page 29, line 10, at end insert—
‘(g)set out the grounds of objection to such a penalty contained in section 34.’.
No. 112, in clause 33, page 29, line 11, leave out “14” and insert “28”.
No. 113, in clause 33, page 29, line 18, after “question”, insert
‘save a question of proper service of the notice’.

Edward Garnier: On page 28 of the Bill, we wish to insert “in writing” in clause 33(2), so it would read:
“The Secretary of State may, by a notice given to the defaulter”—
“in writing”—
“in the prescribed manner”.
It may be thought that “notice” suggests an element of permanence, but it is perfectly possible to give people notice orally. I have no doubt that in practical terms the Secretary of State will not be wandering around telling people that he will be inviting his officials to send out pieces of paper, but it will be as well to have that assurance from the Minister.
Amendments Nos. 110 to 113 deal with what I hope are perfectly sensible suggestions. In relation to amendment No. 110, it should be possible to make penalty payments in instalments. Consider the earlier clauses that we dealt with: some civil penalties are, or could be, in the thousands of pounds, so an instalment method may be just and appropriate.
Similarly, the next amendment would require the setting out of the grounds for objection in clause 34 be specified. With amendment No. 112, we want to adjust the period for payment to 28 days as opposed to 14. That seems to be entirely just, and it would not destroy the Government.
With amendment No. 113, we say that the grounds for moving the procedure to deal with an objection are unfairly restricted to those in clause 33(6)(a) to (c). They should include also questions about the quality of the serving of the notice itself. I know that the Royal Mail is impeccable in every aspect of its functions, but  from time to time the post does not arrive, and it is no good turning up at court or at the tribunal complaining that the notice never arrived, if that argument is not available. I hope that it can be made such.
The amendments are fairly straightforward, and they can be dealt with in a common-sense way. I imagine that the Government wish to embrace them.

Tony McNulty: The hon. and learned Gentleman clearly has a very strong imagination. We think that amendment No. 109 is unnecessary—he alluded to this himself—because although the provision, taken literally, could mean the Secretary of State going around and orally presenting to everyone the cost and circumstances of the civil penalty, he does not really want to do that, so it is not going to happen.
We shall not need the requirement to give notice in writing. Subsection (3) sets out the information that a notice must contain. Regulations made under subsection (2)—I am sorry to offend the hon. and learned Gentleman by talking about regulations—will be aimed at ensuring that the manner in which a notice is given is clear and fair and that it leaves the recipient in no doubt that a penalty has been imposed.
We think that leaving the provision to regulation will give us a good deal of the necessary flexibility to achieve that aim. For example, notices might be given by e-mail—for the benefit of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that is a new-fangled contraption that works over the airwaves—as well as through the post. Subsequent innovations may mean that leaving the provision with that flexibility is preferable to being very specific and talking about writing.
Amendment No. 110 would spell it out that a penalty may be paid in instalments. We shall certainly consider that when we design the detailed arrangements; it is an entirely fair point that reflects how things are going. Crucially, though, subsection (3)(d) does not preclude us from so doing, and I do not consider it necessary to refer expressly in the clause to instalments.
Through amendment No. 112, the hon. and learned Gentleman would increase the period within which a person may be required to pay a penalty from 14 days to 28. Subsection (4) simply provides for a minimum period of not less than 14 days, but the period will not be settled until the details of the scheme are finalised. We think that 14 days is the right time to have as a statutory minimum, and I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that when the time comes to decide the period set for penalty notices, careful thought will be given to those who may be subject to civil penalties and whether a payment period of more than 14 days is desirable in practice.
I apologise for not dealing with every single amendment, but, although I appreciate the drift, I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, given the calm and reassuring words I have just imparted.

Edward Garnier: May I assure you, Mr. Gale, and the Minister that none of my amendments “drift”? They are, in every sense, intellectually coherent.  Unfortunately, on this occasion, that has not got across to the Minister, who has asked me to withdraw the amendment. Because I am sitting opposite him, I shall agree. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 - Appeals against penalties

Patrick Mercer: I beg to move amendment No. 115, in clause 35, page 30, line 23, leave out “or”.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 116, in clause 35, page 30, line 24, at end insert
‘or
(d)increase the penalty.’.

Patrick Mercer: The amendment is a very simple one, which would merely delete the word “or”. Amendment No. 116 would add a new paragraph (d). We are probing the Government on this matter because, in relation to the question of appeal, the court can cancel or reduce the penalty, or dismiss the appeal. We propose that the court should be allowed to increase the penalty. A disincentive to appeal would be created that the court might find useful.
Any number of appeals could go on in relation to several elements of this Bill, and others. If we give the court the ability to increase the penalty, there might be less incentive to appeal. I believe that would be useful, so I would like to know why the Government have not included such a provision. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation.

Alistair Carmichael: I shall be brief. Perhaps the Minister will respond to this point. It does not strictly relate to the amendment, but it would assist me if he clarified the Government’s thinking on the procedure to be followed in bringing such matters before a court in Scotland. There is a procedure known as summary application, for which legal representation is not normally required, and it seems to me eminently sensible that the Government should use that much under-used procedure. I hope the Minister will confirm that that is their intention.

Roger Gale: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am perfectly happy to allow stand part debate at the beginning of our consideration of a clause, rather than at the end, and I am sure that that will accommodate the Minister’s response.

Tony McNulty: Thank you, Mr. Gale.
As the hon. Member for Newark suggests, this clause is about whether to
“(a) allow the appeal and cancel the penalty;
(b) allow the appeal and reduce the penalty; or
(c) dismiss the appeal.”
He seeks to add a further power to increase the penalty. On balance, we do not think that the amendment is desirable. It certainly would not follow the pattern of similar civil penalty schemes, such as the carriers’ liability scheme in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, under which the court is not empowered to increase penalties.
The opportunity to appeal to the court is provided as a means of ensuring that, even though civil penalties are unilaterally imposed by the Secretary of State, the article 6 right—that is, the right to a fair trial for those on whom penalties are imposed—is respected. The purpose of the appeal is not for the court to mete out further punishment to the appellant, but to ensure that those rights under article 6 are respected. The Secretary of State decides what the appropriate penalty is and, at the objection stage, whether to increase it.
On balance, there is no reason for the courts to have the power to raise the penalty—as I say, in other civil penalty schemes there is certainly no such power—but I take the point about trying to achieve a balance between allowing the right to appeal, thus satisfying the requirements of article 6, and trying to build in a deterrence factor so that people do not appeal capriciously.
To answer the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), subsection (7) says that in Scotland the matter is down to the sheriff. I have no idea whether that answers his question, but that is my answer, as I do not know where responsibility for summary applications lies in the Scottish legal system.
Given what I said on the lead amendment, I ask the hon. Member for Newark to withdraw his amendment, but I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland first.

Alistair Carmichael: Summary application is, in the normal course of things, made to the sheriff, but there are any number of functions that could be used and ways that such matters could be brought before him. However, I suggest to the Minister and his advisers that summary application is the most appropriate.

Tony McNulty: Given that I have already exhausted my extensive knowledge of the Scottish legal system, I cannot refuse the hon. Gentleman’s blandishments. I will take that issue back with me and look into what would be the most appropriate form for appeals to be dealt with by the sheriff in the Scottish legal system. I ask the hon. Member for Newark to withdraw his amendment.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for increasing my small store of knowledge—

Tony McNulty: The Liberal Democrat.

Patrick Mercer: Indeed; the Minister is quite right. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat for increasing my small store of knowledge of Scottish law.
I would not wish this amendment to put the Bill out of step with the carriers’ liability scheme, or indeed any other part of civil law, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 - Code of practice on penalties

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Edward Garnier: I have just one point to make, and it was anticipated in debate a little while ago. The clause deals with the code of practice on penalties. We must see that code of practice before the Bill goes too much further down the legislative road. It is no good the Bill referring to things that we have not seen, unless we are promised that we will see them very shortly.

Alistair Carmichael: I broadly agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman’s comments. Perhaps over the summer months, the Minister will consider widening the clause to include in the code of practice the circumstances in which civil penalties will be recovered by civil diligence, whether that is arrestment of wages or, ultimately, something such as poinding and warrant sales.

Tony McNulty: I shall be brief. We referred to the carriers’ liability scheme, for which there will be a code of practice. The points made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough are entirely fair, and I shall make every endeavour to ensure that there is at least a high-level headline framework of what the code of practice might look like.

Edward Garnier: Will it be rolled out?

Tony McNulty: No, I am not rolling out anything. I might roll out from my sunbed into the swimming pool if there is water in it, but I am not rolling out beyond that. The point remains entirely fair, however. The code of practice will be a key element of the civil penalty regime. To the extent that I can provide anything of substance on Report, I shall endeavour to do so.
I shall also try to take up the points made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about the recovery process. I do not want to get into another little debate about Scottish law, but I suspect that in England and Wales we will be talking about an attachment-of-earnings route rather than any other. I am mindful of what he said about warrant sales and that fellow Tommy whatever his name is, if he is still about.

Ben Wallace: Sheridan.

Tony McNulty: I know his name; that is why I did not mention it.
Fair points have been made. I shall take them away, and I undertake to ensure that the Committee is advised of the direction in which we seek to go and to provide the information if we can on Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37 - Fees in respect of functions carried out under Act

Tony McNulty: I beg to move amendment No. 240, in clause 37, page 32, line 28, at end insert—
()The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations containing (with or without other provision) a provision authorised by subsection (1) is exercisable, on the first occasion on which regulations are made under this section, only if a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each house.’.
The amendment makes good the commitment given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Second Reading on 28 June, at column 1161 of the Official Report, to come back in Committee with an amendment to clause 37 to make the initial setting of fees subject to parliamentary approval by the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure. This is the first opportunity to change the Bill to reflect that and we seek to do so in a spirit of co-operation, consensus and equanimity.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 37, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 - Verifying information provided with passport applications etc.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Edward Garnier: I have a brief question about the clause, which will give the Secretary of State power to require persons to provide him with particular information. May I be assured that that requirement will be in writing, as with the penalty notice, and will not simply be a demand made by an official, more or less good tempered, during an interview? There must be some formality to it.

Tony McNulty: I think that I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman that assurance, not least because from next year we will start to implement the first generation of biometric passports. There will be a gear change in terms of what people need to present at the interview process and elsewhere. Clearly, that will be far better dealt with in writing and with, I think—we shall have to reflect on this; I know that the UK Passport Service is doing so as we speak—an awareness and education programme on exactly what the new process entails. Of course, the demand will be  in writing and, as ever with Government correspondence, it will be fully clear on a first reading exactly what the process entails. He makes a fair point and I can give him that assurance.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 - Orders and regulations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Edward Garnier: This innocent-sounding clause comes under the heading “Supplemental”, but it deals with orders and regulations. Although it is supplemental, it is a key aspect of the Bill that I would not wish to skate over. I suggest that it must be subject to far greater discussion and that it needs greater clarity. Let us just dip into it. Under the clause, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales is given order or regulation-making powers to be exercised by statutory instrument. We should bear it in mind that, for example, subsection (4) states that
“every power conferred by this Act on a person to make an order or regulations includes power ... 
(b) to make provision subject to such exemptions and exceptions as that person thinks fit; and
(c) to make such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as that person thinks fit.”
I have made my complaints about secondary legislation and about the enabling nature of the Bill, but in this clause we see such things on the page in stark black and white, and it is incumbent on the Government to tell Parliament precisely what they intend. If they cannot do so this morning, they should do so at least by the time the Bill leaves the House of Commons.

Tony McNulty: I accept the points that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes; he has made them throughout our lengthy proceedings. I shall correct him only by saying that the provisions are stated clearly in green and black, rather than in white and black, but that is by the bye. I also congratulate the draftsperson on the phrase
“incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional”,
because it has a nice flow to it if nothing else, and it vaguely resembles English.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is right that the clause is intended to embrace all the regulation and order-making powers that are needed in respect of an enabling Bill such as this. The provisions that he alights on in subsection (4) are largely about including the necessary degree of flexibility in the order-making powers so that they are not entirely rigid. Indeed, that is what the note that has kindly just been put before me says. I am reminded of the debates that we had about fees, and about those with an itinerant lifestyle, the elderly and the young.
I know that the clause is offensive to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I cannot do anything about that, but the flexibility that it contains is important in the context of the statutory instrument and order-making powers. Before the legislation receives Royal Assent, I shall seek as and when I can—there will clearly be a considerable commencement tail as everything will not unfold at the same time—to give as full a timetable as possible of when the regulations are likely to occur and, to the extent that it is in my power, to give either drafts of those orders or regulations or an outline of what they will entail as the commencement unrolls. I cannot be fairer than that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 - General interpretation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Edward Garnier: I simply wish to ask the Minister this question: if we are to have a definition of the word “modification”, should we not also have a definition of the word “amendment”?

Tony McNulty: To answer simply, one amends legislation, but one modifies reports and regulations. Everyone understands that that is the case. In the hon. and learned Gentleman’s witty retorts throughout our deliberations, he has shown that he understands what both “amendment” and “modification” mean. However, in a stricter sense—this deals with the semi-word game that we sometimes indulge in by way of scrutiny—“amendment” is specific to primary legislation and “modification” is an appropriate term for other areas.
If I may be flippant for a moment, let me say that, if we wanted a layman’s guide to legalese to explain the range of words that we understand to mean something other than what the lawyers mean by them, the clause would be bigger than the rest of the Bill. As that is not the case, however, clause 43 contains sufficient provision to explain the terms that mere mortals like us do not entirely understand. I commend the clause, in all its glory, to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 - Scotland

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Ben Wallace: I simply seek an assurance from the Secretary of State that subsection (2) categorically rules out the use of a Sewel motion. I do not necessarily expect him to know what that is. He might, but if he does not, he could perhaps inform the Committee in writing.

Tony McNulty: As the hon. Gentleman may have noticed, the Secretary of State is not present, but I shall pass on to him the fact that the hon. Gentleman does not think that he knows what a Sewel motion is. In terms of relations with Scotland, if the Bill required a Sewel motion, it would have had one before the last amendable stage of our Commons proceedings. That is not forthcoming. The Scottish Parliament is not in any way discussing a Sewel motion, because that is unnecessary for the Bill. It would have been slightly remiss of the Government to have got even this far in our proceedings if we had been told that we required a Sewel motion without having ensured that such deliberations were already under way. The Bill does not need a Sewel motion.

Ben Wallace: Perhaps I have not explained myself well enough. Should the Scottish Parliament—under the leadership of a “Mr. Tommy whatever-his-name”—decide to refuse to implement any of these matters, including some relating to the public services, a Sewel motion could allow for Westminster to impose the obligation. Subsection (2) includes the words
“may not allow or require the imposition”,
but I am simply asking whether the Minister will rule out the introduction of a Sewel motion in the Scottish Parliament to effect such an imposition.

Tony McNulty: I understand that in a previous incarnation the hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Scottish Parliament, but I hope that he had a stronger grasp on Scottish matters at that time than he showed in his intervention.
No part of the Bill requires a Sewel motion. I do not need to give the hon. Gentleman any assurance that clause 44(2) prescribes the utilisation of a Sewel motion or otherwise. If the parent legislation does not require a Sewel motion, because of the matters that it covers, in terms of its dealings with the Scottish Parliament, none of the consequential elements in that parent Bill require such a motion—and that is the end of the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Short title, repeals, commencement, transitory provision and extent

Patrick Mercer: I beg to move amendment No. 121, in clause 45, page 39, line 2, after “the”, insert “National Registration and”.
This is a very simple amendment. Clause 45 relates to the Bill’s title and to repeals, commencements, transitory provisions and so on. The Minister will be  aware that, throughout our many debates on this subject, we have petitioned for the title of the Bill to be changed. That is reflected in this amendment.
The most overused words in this debate have been modification and amendment. An anti-tank round that goes right to the heart of something is modified with little wings—thin stabilised things called canards. I suggest that this amendment is covered with canards, and that it goes right to the heart of this part of the Bill. As I am sure the Minister will agree, if we changed the title, it would improve things hugely and they would be much clearer for everyone. No doubt, such a change is deeply desirable.

Edward Garnier: I agree with my hon. Friend, not for the first time. The suggestion that he makes would bring the clause in line with the long title of the Bill. The Bill is described as one to
“make provision for a national scheme of registration of individuals”.
That is the first thing that it is designed to do. The second thing it is designed to do is to make provision for “the issue of cards”. It is funny that the Bill should be described by its second purpose and not by its first. If it were to be described accurately, it would, as he suggests, be called the “National Registration and Identity Cards Bill”. This is not a flippant point, as it is important for the Government to describe the Bill accurately. I am sure they will wish to do so.

Tony McNulty: I take that not as a flippant point, but as a fair one. Nevertheless, I entirely disagree with it, which I am fully entitled to do. We are happy with the short title as it is. Identity cards are the key focal point for substantive public debate and for our own deliberations. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Newark did not come back with the notion of the flash-and-go Bill, which would have been just as useful for our deliberations.
As I have said time and again, the interaction between the register and the card is important, and the register is certainly an important feature of the overall scheme. None the less, the short title reflects the substance of the Bill, and we think that “Identity Cards Bill” just about covers it, so I resist the amendment in the nicest possible way.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. It comes as no surprise that this, our last substantive amendment, should be resisted, although I regret that. However, in light of the amendment and how the Minister has dealt with it, I shall not press the matter, although I hope that it can be dealt with later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Edward Garnier: This is my last cry on the subject of modifications. Clause 45(6) states:
“Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for provisions of this Act to extend with such modifications (if any) as She thinks fit to any of the Channel Islands or to the Isle of Man.”
That would be a modification of the Act, rather than one simply made through secondary legislation or to the scheme. I merely note that, and I trust that Her Majesty may see fit to pay particular attention to that aspect of the Bill.

Tony McNulty: The hon. and learned Gentleman has fallen at the last hurdle. The modification would be to the provisions provided for by the Act, not to the Act itself. Were they modifications to the Act, they would be amendments. With that in mind, I ask that clause 45 should stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Tony McNulty: I shall not detain the Committee for long, but I wish to say a few words before we conclude. On the whole, our deliberations have been fair. They have also, in the main, been good-humoured and temperate, although I have provided the odd exception to that. We have been excellently served by your chairmanship, Mr. Gale, and that of Mr. Hood, and I convey the Committee’s thanks to you both for the good-humoured and temperate way in which you chaired our proceedings.
Opposition Committee members were, I know, terribly underwhelmed by the programme motion, but after the order and the knives were introduced, our deliberations remained good-hearted, but picked up pace. We managed two clauses in our first four sittings and then, without any loss of our ability to scrutinise, we picked up the pace and deliberated on things in detail. I would argue that, without that motion and the knives, we would still be debating clause 3.
I take the point that clauses 1 and 2 were matters of substance. We have now ensured that almost all the 45 clauses and two schedules have been debated to the level of detail that the Committee requires. I said at the outset that we had had scrutiny and debate on these matters before, and I described this as déjà vu. Now that we have come to the end of the proceedings, it seems that that was not entirely fair; some matters raised by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough and by the hon. Members for Newark and for Orkney and Shetland were different from those raised when last the Committee met. We have had time to explore some elements and amendments, nay, modifications, more in this Committee than in the last.
I thank all the Opposition Front Benchers for the way in which they put the Bill to scrutiny. I also hope that the hon. Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) and for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) enjoyed their first outing in Committee. For new Members, they contributed in exemplary fashion. I also congratulate the new Government Members who contributed.
Reverting to academic mode, if I were giving an early report on the new Liberal Democrat Member, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale  (Tim Farron), I would say, “Could do better,” or something similar. Our deliberations are serious and not simply partisan rhetoric. That is a lesson that he will learn. In my early days in the council chamber in Harrow, I used to scream and shout. I do not do that any more, as people will know—at least not from the uninformed position that the hon. Gentleman illustrated, and which I illustrated during my first outings in the mid-1980s.
The debate has been fair, robust and detailed. For that, everyone is to be thanked. I also thank, not in passing but in substance, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who had his first outing as such; for a Minister on a first outing on such a controversial Bill, he performed in exemplary fashion. Happily, he allowed me to carry out nature’s normal ablutions at various stages. Flying solo on a Bill is not nice, and it can mean having to engineer debates so that one can leave when necessary.
I demur from those who suggest scurrilously that I left the Room for nicotine intakes. You will know, Mr. Gale, that the Corridor outside this Room is non-smoking. I have not broken that ruling—and my nose is not growing in any way as I make these remarks.
I have written two letters to you, Mr. Gale, on points that needed greater elaboration. There may be more on the way. If I missed anything, I apologise. If hon. Members want to come back to us about points that I undertook to respond to but have not done so, I will happily respond.
We send the Bill back to the House suitably amended with one Government amendment, to clause 37. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I will have huge fun reflecting on all the things that Members have asked us to reflect on during the summer. We shall certainly reflect do so, and the Bill will be in better shape for it. We will return to our deliberations at some stage in October for Third Reading and Report.
On a serious note, the matter before us is one of fundamental import to public policy. I thank everyone for taking it seriously. We have had moments of levity, but we have also had moments of seriousness. It was all done in good humour, politely and with the courtesy that this place should command, and because of that good nature and the temperate way in which we dispatched our deliberations, we and the Bill are all the better for the experience. We will look back lovingly at that experience. I am sure that it will feature substantially in everyone’s memoirs, except perhaps those of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale.
I commend the motion that you, Mr. Gale, should dispatch the Bill to the place downstairs that we love so much.

Edward Garnier: The Minister’s valedictory remarks were notable for two things. First, they were almost longer than the deliberations on the Bill itself. Secondly, they gave us more information about him and his personal habits than about Government policy.
Nevertheless, I join the Minister in thanking you, Mr. Gale, and your co-Chairman, Mr. Hood. In particular, I thank the Clerk to the Committee, Dr. Benger, and his staff, for their help to the Opposition. It was given wholly apolitically on matters of procedure. I am grateful to the Clerk for that, as I know the Minister is.
Mr. McNultyindicated assent.

Edward Garnier: I see the Minister nodding.
I also thank the Hansard reporters. Their work is often forgotten, but for politicians such as myself, who do not suffer from any form of vanity, it is occasionally nice to look back and see how marvellous and seamless our prose in Committee was. I am therefore very grateful to the Hansard reporters for reporting our proceedings.
I agree with the Minister that, although the matter before us is one of deep philosophical division between the main political parties, as well as the Liberal Democrats, we have managed to conduct our affairs with a degree of humour and without losing sight of the seriousness of the legislation.
A lot more needs to be said about the Bill, and a lot more will be said, both in the Chamber of the House of Commons and in another place. None the less, we have done the best that we can within the limits set down for us. I congratulate the two Ministers on their conduct of the Bill, although they might have to answer for it in due course. I congratulate the Government Back Benchers who have adorned the Committee with their silence and occasional interventions, and I also thank the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for assisting the Opposition in trying to resist the Government.
Finally, may I introduce a happy note, although it comes to mind because of a serious issue? My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East, who is not present today, first came into personal contact with terrorism as a result of the death of his brother in Bali. In the context of the Bill, one of the statutory purposes of the identity card register is to deal with terrorism. Happily, having come into the Committee with that connection, my hon. Friend is unable to be here today because he is getting married on Saturday. That my piece of joyful news for the Committee. I am sure that we all wish him well in what I hope will be a long and very happy married life.
It goes without saying—I shall say it none the less; what lawyer, whether or not a Member of Parliament, does not use 50 words when one might have done?—that I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newark, who has been across this parade ground twice, but is still smiling and still has shiny boots. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) has kept us under control, and my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Wyre and for Bournemouth, East have contributed valiantly and with great effect to our proceedings of past few weeks. With that, I look forward to resuming the debate on Report.

Alistair Carmichael: Listening to the Minister and to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough thanking everybody without any possible exception, I was beginning to wonder whether I had fallen through some sort of time warp and turned up at the Oscar awards. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough should have thanked his mother, although we have heard so much about Opposition Members’ families that we probably have no need to hear any more.
I thank you, Mr. Gale, and Mr. Hood, and the officials from the Clerks Department and the Minister’s office for the very efficient way in which our proceedings have been conducted. I also thank the other Front Benchers, and the Minister in particular. I was warned by one of my hon. Friends that I would find the Minister difficult to deal with—the word “thug” might have been mentioned—but that has not been my experience. He has been a tremendous example of courtesy and good humour right up until the last, when he made his wholly unwarranted attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. I suspect that the hon. Friend who gave me the warning thinks that I am bit of a difficult character; perhaps that is what I have in common with the Minister.
We have nothing particular to be proud of in seeing the Bill through Committee, but we can derive some satisfaction from the manner in which we did it.

Roger Gale: As the past 15 minutes of our proceedings have been entirely out of order, I shall compound the problem.
I add my thanks to the Officers of the House, the police, the Clerks and the Hansard writers for all their work, without which our deliberations would be difficult if not impossible; their work is often unsung, but it is nevertheless greatly appreciated.
I thank all hon. Members for the courtesy and good humour with which the Committee has been conducted. It has been exemplary. I only wish that those outside the House, particularly on the Press Benches, would pay more attention to such deliberations, as it was noticeable during our proceedings that those Benches were largely empty. I also thank the new Members in the Committee for their participation; I hope that it has been an interesting, enjoyable and informative experience.
In the light of the usual summer calumnies published this morning by the tabloid press, I wish each and every member of the Committee the usual hard-working, tiresome and exhausting recess, in the knowledge that while the journalists will leave this building with their buckets and spades, Members’ postbags will continue to be dealt with throughout the summer. Should any Member have the opportunity to take a couple of weeks’ vacation, however, I trust that it will be enjoyable.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at sixteen minutes past Ten o’clock.